專利說明書[Summary]討論

專利說明書有很多規定要有的內容，比如發明名稱、摘要、發明技術領域、先前技術、發明概要（Summary）/發明內容、實施方式與申請專利範圍。是否少一個部分就會影響專利獲准，答案是："是的"，因為專利說明書撰寫方式在各國專利法與審查基準都有規定。

中華民國專利取得申請日的條件，如：中華民國專利法第25條第2項就規定取得專利申請日的要件：申請書、說明書、申請專利範圍與必要的圖式；接著第26條就規定說明書揭露方式制定在施行細則，在第17條，顯然「發明內容」不是可以忽略不記的部分，否則會以不符專利法第26條規定核駁（說明書、申請專利範圍、摘要及圖式之揭露方式，於本法施行細則定之）。

第十七條 申請發明專利者，其說明書應載明下列事項：

一、發明名稱。 

二、技術領域。 

三、先前技術：申請人所知之先前技術，並得檢送該先前技術之相關資料。

四、發明內容：發明所欲解決之問題、解決問題之技術手段及對照先前技術之功效 。 

五、圖式簡單說明：有圖式者，應以簡明之文字依圖式之圖號順序說明圖式。 

六、實施方式：記載一個以上之實施方式，必要時得以實施例說明；有圖式者，應 參照圖式加以說明。 

七、符號說明：有圖式者，應依圖號或符號順序列出圖式之主要符號並加以說明。

中國專利實務上對於「發明內容」的審查頗為嚴格，除了一定要將獨立請求項範圍貼上發明內容，更有些代理人就一股腦兒將所有獨立項、附屬項內容都貼上發明內容。其實就是避免有任何「不一致」而被核駁的可能。

「专利法实施细则」：

第十七條："（三）发明内容：写明发明或者实用新型所要解决的技术问题以及解决其技术问题采用的技术方案，并对照现有技术写明发明或者实用新型的有益效果；"

4.7.2审查说明书和摘要

"(2)各权利要求的技术方案所表述的请求保护的范围能否在说明书中找到根据，且说明书中发明内容部分所述的技术方案与权利要求所限定的相应技术方案的表述是否一致；"

美國專利說明書也是規定有類似的幾個部分，在其細則37C.F.R.1.77規定了專利申請書內容的編排，應以下列內容順序提交：申請遞交表格、費用、申請資料、說明書、圖式與發明人宣誓書等。其中「說明書」內容順序應記載：發明名稱、 相關申請案記載（cross reference）、聯邦研發贊助資訊、共同研發各方名稱、程式序列、發明人或共同發明的申請前揭露內容、發明背景、發明簡單概要（summary）、圖式簡要說明、發明細節描述、申請專利範圍、摘要等。這部分其實也被要求要與專利範圍一致，甚至專利獲准後應該依照獲准專利範圍來改，不過，實務上若沒有實質上的多大差異，比較少有大幅修改的必要。

其中本篇有興趣的在「Summary」的記載是否必要，參見37 C.F.R. 1.73規定，發明簡單概要（brief Summary）/發明內容記載於發明細節內容（實施方式）前，可包括請求項主張的發明目的，而且應該與請求項主張發明相稱（commensurate with the invention as claimed），這如我們一般實務上約略記載請求項1等獨立請求項的發明內容一致，不過實務上，美國專利並沒有需要如此拘謹。

發明簡單概要的記載主要是讓公眾可以簡要了解本發明，因此記載上應該清楚、簡要，因此適當地記載算是可以讓閱覽的人快速理解本發明，這也是平常閱讀一個專利公報時最快進入發明為何的方式之一，特別是檢索，這個比摘要更多內容的檢索欄位很重要。其中若有只是應付有這個段落的格式的一般性內容，可能會被要求刪除或修改。

特別的是，這也常常被忽略，當申請專利範圍修改與申請時有些差異時，到了準備獲准專利時，審查委員經通盤檢視後，可以要求同步修改Summary，使之與申請專利範圍一致，這規定在MPEP 1302.01："the examiner should require the applicant to modify the brief summary of the invention and restrict the descriptive matter so as to be in harmony with the claims"。

綜上所述，好像brief summary不是重要的內容，既然不是重要的部分，似乎也不影響專利獲准，又不希望限制專利範圍的主張，即便有以上規定，也有不少專利直接就忽略本段。經簡單檢索，brief summary也可能會整篇被忽略（應該就美國這樣吧！），這種還蠻多的，比如：

US8171177

整篇沒有Summary這段

US8959217

US7107432

這篇沒有Summray，倒是有段「disclosure of invention」，這應該就是summary！

法條參考：

MPEP 608.01(a)   Arrangement of Application

37 C.F.R. 1.77   Arrangement of application elements.

• (a) The elements of the application, if applicable, should appear in the following order:
  • (1) Utility application transmittal form.
  • (2) Fee transmittal form.
  • (3) Application data sheet (see § 1.76).
  • (4) Specification.
  • (5) Drawings.
  • (6) The inventor’s oath or declaration.
• (b) The specification should include the following sections in order:
  • (1) Title of the invention, which may be accompanied by an introductory portion stating the name, citizenship, and residence of the applicant (unless included in the application data sheet).
  • (2) Cross-reference to related applications.
  • (3) Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development.
  • (4) The names of the parties to a joint research agreement.
  • (5) Reference to a “Sequence Listing,” a table, or a computer program listing appendix submitted on a compact disc and an incorporation-by-reference of the material on the compact disc (see § 1.52(e)(5)). The total number of compact discs including duplicates and the files on each compact disc shall be specified.
  • (6) Statement regarding prior disclosures by the inventor or a joint inventor.
  • (7) Background of the invention.
  • (8) Brief summary of the invention.
  • (9) Brief description of the several views of the drawing.n.
  • (10) Detailed description of the invention.
  • (11) A claim or claims.
  • (12) Abstract of the disclosure.
  • (13) “Sequence Listing,” if on paper (see §§ 1.821 through 1.825).
• (c) The text of the specification sections defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(12) of this section, if applicable, should be preceded by a section heading in uppercase and without underlining or bold type.

MPEP 608.01(d)   Brief Summary of Invention

37 C.F.R. 1.73   Summary of the invention.

A brief summary of the invention indicating its nature and substance, which may include a statement of the object of the invention, should precede the detailed description. Such summary should, when set forth, be commensurate with the invention as claimed and any object recited should be that of the invention as claimed.

Since the purpose of the brief summary of invention is to apprise the public, and more especially those interested in the particular art to which the invention relates, of the nature of the invention, the summary should be directed to the specific invention being claimed, in contradistinction to mere generalities which would be equally applicable to numerous preceding patents. That is, the subject matter of the invention should be described in one or more clear, concise sentences or paragraphs. Stereotyped general statements that would fit one application as well as another serve no useful purpose and may well be required to be canceled as surplusage, and, in the absence of any illuminating statement, replaced by statements that are directly on point as applicable exclusively to the case at hand.
The brief summary, if properly written to set out the exact nature, operation, and purpose of the invention, will be of material assistance in aiding ready understanding of the patent in future searches. The brief summary should be more than a mere statement of the objects of the invention, which statement is also permissible under 37 CFR 1.73.

The brief summary of invention should be consistent with the subject matter of the claims. Note final review of application and preparation for issue, MPEP § 1302.

MPEP 1302.01   GENERAL REVIEW OF DISCLOSURE

When an application is apparently ready for allowance, it should be reviewed by the examiner to make certain that the whole application meets all formal and substantive (i.e., statutory) requirements and that the language of the claims is enabled by, and finds adequate descriptive support in, the application disclosure as originally filed. Neglect to give due attention to these matters may lead to confusion as to the scope of the patent.

Frequently, the invention as originally described and claimed was of much greater scope than that defined in the claims as allowed. Some or much of the subject matter disclosed may be entirely outside the bounds of the claims accepted by the applicant. In such case, the examiner should require the applicant to modify the brief summary of the invention and restrict the descriptive matter so as to be in harmony with the claims. However valuable for reference purposes the examiner may consider the matter which is extraneous to the claimed invention, patents should be confined in their disclosures to the respective inventions patented (see 37 CFR 1.71 and 1.73). Of course, enough background should be included to make the invention clearly understandable. See MPEP § 608.01(c) and § 608.01(d). Form paragraphs 13.07 and 13.08 may be used.

即便規定「發明內容」應為專利說明書記載的一部分，但是卻有人認為沒有這部分，也不會影響專利獲准。

參考：(James Long律師提供參考)
Non-mandatory nature of Summary
http://uspto-mpep.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Non-mandatory-nature-of-Summary/100977-9426

這個地方的討論認為用說明書沒有Summary作為核駁理由是不當的。

Ron